I__. - International Military Testing Association

I_- __-- ____-._ -.- -- -.. .-.-----. -..-- --
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
-8 .r:: .‘. a\ p-;:::
.; ,. .d, :’ a’
P
Table 2 4 _
Zero-Order Correlations for Model Components
*. .’
. ;.
L
*.
I.
$$f..
I.
: :.
.A, :.-
Level
Climate
Delegation of Classification Authority
Letters of Warning
Elimination of Mandatory Interviews
Consequences (Effort)
Consequences (Benefits)
Acceptance for Innovation
1
.20*
.oo
.08
.14*
.oo
.09
.20*
2
.28*
.32*
.15*
-.o 1
.30*
.2”* 3
3
.31*
.29*
.oo
.50*
.44*
4 .I 5
4
.27*.+
.Ol ;:,:
.37*- ’ .32*
.44* .55*
,,. 6
-08
.1.1
.20*
.a.%
7 , ,_ i;; J.,;, g &
. $ .y 3;.
, ‘;
Regression anaiyses were replicated by employing LISREL (Jorestog & Sordom, 1984):,. :
This approach uses equations with more explicit specifications and simultaneous ,estim$es;.,$ , .hypothesized
underlying relationships and unexplained variance. LISREL provides a more, 2
holistic approach in comparison to separate regression anaiyses (Bagozzii& Phillips, ;1982). ‘and’ ., “yi Y’ ;,.,
served to test the goodness-of-fit of the model in this study. The variablg; 'LEVEL, did not meet:: .y, ,_
the specifications of the model and could not be entered as a component.‘- The mo:!el yielded h ~,~;;t,‘?’
goodness-of-fit (GFI) measure of .94 with an adjusted GFI (AGFI) of $3, and a root mean .y*,, ,?t,
square residual (RMSR) equal to .15. This model appears to be a very reasonable explanation of;;the
relationships between these variables and their ability to predict acceptance for innovation. : .‘I .i
WhiIe the data were generally consistent with the model there were some discrepancies. ’ “’
Contrary to expectations, all these changes were found to exert a direct effect on,KCEPTANcE
as well as having a direct effect on CONSEQUENCES. It appears that the changes and ,
CONSEQUENCES are neither empirically distinct nor do they seem to function in an exactly ‘,
similar fashion. The other not readily explainable departure from the l3roposed model is the
lack of significant relationships between CONSEQUENCES (EFFORT) and the, factors hypothesized
as the determinants of this factor.
Conclusions
; :
The present research proposed and tested a model that inc&porated ,‘.cornponents~.;:~~* ‘(
hypothesized as relevant to the assessment of the status of a set of changes being impleniente@:. +.3,+~ w:~-
In general the hypothesized interrelationships were supported by the dat& The assessm&t
.
;f
. . . . ( .
yi.,? * .I L
the specific changes during the period of implementation was influenced by organizational ‘,’ ;?
contextual factors (CLIMATE). The assessment of the specific changps, in turn, affected . .,
perceived consequences of the changes which influenced the desire to retain the changes. This
last factor could be construed as intentionality, an important underpinning of or precursor to
the final stage of institutionalization.
56% of the variance.
The combination of predictors in the model accounted for
Several conclusions are evident from results based on using regression and structural’ ,,:e
equations. Consistent with past research (Glaser, 1973), hierarchical level and organizational ,I’ “.‘;.
climate were found to be important factors for predicting acceptance of change, but, as the _
present results suggest, they operate as indirect rather than direct predictors. The pattern of.
results, thus, suggest that simple bivariate correlations cannot adequately capture the CLIMATE -
,
ACCEPTACE OF CHANGE relationship. In addition the present model suggests that a combination 4a
of general information about the organization (e.g. LEVEL, CLIMATE) and more specifi?
information about outcomes brought about by the changes are necessary to better understand..
and assess the status of the changes under study and to better predict their future acceptance.
*
p < .05, N = 211
_